The better medium game round in a pinch: .223 or 7.62x39mm

First no one here is talking about using ball or milsurp bullets period. Second nobody is talking about using military style rifles either. There are quite a few bolt guns out there CZ, Howa, and now Ruger all with 311 bores that will shoot the round very accurately. Most people will disagree with you about using 223 for deer also.

steve

Somebody did mention using milsurp. I have not used bolt actions for either cartridge, I am just relating my experience. You are free to disagree, many have said they prefer the 7.62 x 39 and that is fine. I am just relating my experience and my use. Take a deep breath now. I do agree that the 7.62x39 is capable of being an accurate cartridge hand loaded and in a good bolt action. I do know guys that use .223 bolt actions to kill prairie dogs at a few 100 yards as far as accuracy. But those loads are not suitable for deer. I prefer more powerful loads than either for much beyond 150 yards myself. Again just my experience. But I trust myself a lot more than a stranger on the internet that may be just full of hot air. Or anyone that uses phonies as a source.

The 223 round is not suitable for deer sized game. That people are able to kill deer with it doesn't change that. We can fish with dynamite. That doesn't make it right.

7.62x39 to 150 yards, in a pinch, is the better choice from an ethics perspective. 30 cal is better than 22 cal and a 150 grain bullet is better than a ~70 grain bullet. The only qualifier is that if the rifle in 7.62x39 is not 2-3 MOA, then a .223 rifle that is would be better...in a pinch. In an accurate rifle, 7.62x39 will always be better.

same thing applies to you d2wing. It is just your onion which you have a right to it. Yes and deer have been killed with the 223 bullet ( I have killed quite a few with the 223). Still thte 223 is a marginal round for deer to say the least and out to 200 yards either one will suffice for the job.

In a pinch implies"whichever is available" at my house that's a 5.56. But in a pinch either will do IF YOU'LL DO

d2wing said:

The deer can't measure the difference in of 8 hundreds of an inch difference in diameter.

Click to expand...

A deer won't be able to tell the difference that it has a 30% bigger hole that is leaking blood? Nice use of the small 8 hundredth number to diminish it's usefulness. I know I would rather have 30% less blood squirting out a wound then not, 8 hundredths is quite a large difference in hole size when you are talking on the low side of bullet diameters.

I will agree with you though that the 30-30 does have a leg up on the x39, especially since the advent of LeverEvolution ammo. But I would imagine that the x39 makes for a great sub 200 yard deer harvester (i've never used it for deer), especially when used in a modern bolt action or ar47 with premium hunting ammo, the accuracy is eye opening (i can attest to this) compared to what used to be expected of the cartridge due to the loose tolerances found in old milsurps.

Lets make some things clear, 7.62 x 39 is nowhere near as effective as a 30-30

Click to expand...

And said with such certainty too!

If you're talking about factory loads only, then yea I'm inclined to agree that the venerable old 30-30 may have the edge. However, for the handloader with a bolt action 7.62x39...? Dropping 160-grain FTX's into a 7.62x39 completely changes the game, exceeding 1000 ft. lbs. of energy at 200 yards. I don't know of a single flat-nosed 30-30 round that can do that. You have to invest in the LeverEvolution ammo to get that kind of performance from the 30-30, and even then you only hope it's as accurate as my bolt action 7.62x39.

How would using an undersized bullet, designed for the 30-30, improve 7.62x39 performance against the cartridge for which it was designed exactly? Leverevolution powder is available for sale, so 30-30 ammunition can be loaded that allows for a spitzer bullet (160gr FTX) of correct size to be loaded to about 2500 fps. Why would that same bullet in a smaller case and .003 undersized vs barrel groove perform better? I don't follow.

It always has been and always will be shot placement. Good hunting bullets will take deer fine with either with a good shot placement. If I had both with proper bullets, it would depend on the hunt/situation at hand. I've had really good luck with .223 on pigs inside 200 yards and with good placement. Maybe 7.62x39 would do better but I haven't wanted to switch the hunting rifle yet. Just get one and shoot what you need to shoot where you need to shoot it and there won't be an issue with either.

Jason_W said:

I hope this thread doesn't devolve and end up locked. I'm finding the insights useful.

In places where non-lead bullets are mandated, availability of such bullets is a consideration as well. There are only a few extant non-lead bullets for the x39. I guess your out of luck if none of them are sufficiently accurate in your rifle. There are, by contrast, a plethora of non lead .224 bullets available.

While this is far from a controlled, scientific test, the results are interesting.



If you don't want to or can't watch, in an informal, backyard ballistics test, a .223 firing a 62 grain Barnes TSX penetrated 20-24" of clear ballistics gel. While I agree there are far better rounds for a dedicated deer rifle, such performance is nothing to scoff at. Who would have thought 40 years ago the .223 would ever be able to do that.

Click to expand...

7.62x39 125gr SP - 10% Gel - 32+" of penetration, it would've been nice to see the recovered bullet and measure expansion, should've had a 3rd block some plywood behind it to catch.


For non lead areas there are several manufacturers of 7.62x39, DoubleTap with the Barnes bullet is stated at sending a 123gr solid copper bullet @2,400fps with 1,574 ft/lbs. out of a 20" barrel.

I posted earlier, my vote for 7.62x39, but with a great bullet either will work very well. My real problem with 223 or 5.56 for a deer cartridge is two fold, one being the lack of blood trail, and two being what happens when a little fast bullet hits a big bone. Now with the right bullet a 223 will punch through a bone easily, but are those the same bullets that expand so nicely to destroy vitals the same way a 30 cal slug does? Not normally. I personally have witnessed the real world penetration thru bone and hide with the 7.62x39 (within moderate ranges under 230 yards), and I would be more likely to pick it over 223. But the results of the premium 223 ammo can't be denied, just how many are actually using the right bullet... Just my thoughts, love this thread!

When using correct bullets both rounds are going to easily completely penetrate deer at that range. Look up the posts from a guy named Skypup on several forums. He chronicled his pig hunting, much with a 223 using 70 grain TSX bullets. He was getting pass through penetration on 300+ pound pigs out at a couple hundred yards.

DBWY said:

How would using an undersized bullet, designed for the 30-30, improve 7.62x39 performance against the cartridge for which it was designed exactly? Leverevolution powder is available for sale, so 30-30 ammunition can be loaded that allows for a spitzer bullet (160gr FTX) of correct size to be loaded to about 2500 fps. Why would that same bullet in a smaller case and .003 undersized vs barrel groove perform better? I don't follow.

Click to expand...

"undersized" had not proven to be an issue as many 7.62x39 handloaders are using .308 bullets with excellent results even out of .311 bores (CZ for example). In my particular case, my Savage model 10 has a .308 bore, so I am using the "correct" sized bullet for my bore.

Handloading the 30-30 with the same components as the factory LeverEvolution will give you the performance edge once again vs. handloading the 7.62x39, however your 30-30 will never be as accurate as my bolt action 7.62x39, or the CZ, or more than likely the new Ruger American. Nobody gets 30-30's because they are sub-MOA guns. I routinely take head shots on game with my 7.62x39 because I know it is more than up to the task. I happen to have a more-accurate-than-average Win. 94 that has worn a side mount scope most of it's life, and even though 1.5-2 MOA is routine from that gun, I'm not taking a head shot with it. So, at the end of the day that's the real difference. The accuracy of essentially the same round from a lever gun vs. a bolt gun. For hunting anything but pigs at close range, hand me the bolt gun please.

Thanks. Interesting that Savage would make an out-of-spec barreled rifle, but smart given the greater bullet choice available in .308. Maybe they should call it the "30 Short Russo-American".

Everyone says that 7.62 is similar to a 30-30. I don't know because I've never owned one but I have owned a 30-30. Maybe a pretty good brush/cornfield rifle but it just doesn't do anything very well past 200 yds. If that's the case with the 7.62 x39, I'd pass.

And what are you going to do when the cheap commie block ammo is banned? Cartridge popularity will fall off and commercial ammo will become very expensive. The only reason 7.62 x 39 rifles sell here is because of cheap steel cased ammo.

.223 wouldn't be my first choice for whitetail but it would certainly be ahead of 7.62 x 39.

Maybe a pretty good brush/cornfield rifle but it just doesn't do anything very well past 200 yds. If that's the case with the 7.62 x39, I'd pass.

Click to expand...

If you're talking about the 30-30, you're spot on IMO. The only reason I'd declare the 30-30 a capable 200 yard gun is in the right rifle, using only the LeverEvolution ammo.

However, I have - on video - a young lady friend of mine shooting 9 consecutive 6" clay pigeons at 300 yards with my bolt action 7.62x39 using $6/box steel case hollow point ammo. I don't know about you, but I doubt there is a 30-30 in existence that can do that.

When the cheap commie ammo is no longer available (not holding my breath though), I'll just load my Lapua 7.62x39 brass by hand, like I do now.

Not only is my 7.62x39 my first choice for whitetails inside of 200 yard for new and young hunters, but I think it's a MUCH better choice than a .223 for those hunters. I know how many folks love their .223's but I simply cannot bring myself to launch such a lightweight bullet at a 150 lb. animal. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Either will work with proper bullets, but you should maybe shoot a few deer with both like I have before you sell the .223 short. The wounds are more massive but again both are light rounds and do the job just fine at closer ranges with quality factory loads. I do agree the 7.62x39 will likely penetrate more but deer are pretty skinny. Even the 200 lbs plus ones I shoot here in Minnesota. I have posted pics in the past. My choice for more range power and accuracy was to go to a rifle and cartridge up to it to start with. A Tikka T3 in 7-08 but I have no quarrel with some else's choice. No choice is wrong unless it doesn't work for you. There are limitations.
If you think the .223 is always wrong, well I have no argument with you. I once thought that myself. Enjoy the hunt.

Bullet maker R&D has produced .223 bullets which are proving to be effective on Bambi. Pretty much since 2000, obviously. Same sort of thing for factory load soft-points in the 7.62x39.

The big "however" is that they are range-limited; they're marginal for the sort of shots which can be taken out there beyond 200 to 300 yards, as with such as the .270 or '06 (and others, of course). Personally, I'd likely limit myself to around 150 yards or so, since that sort of distance is a "gimme" shot.

As far as the .30-30, the main limitation is the usually-crappy buckhorn sight. Hard to be precise in aiming. With a scope and a knowledge of the trajectory, there's no reason not to have a clean kill out to, say, 300 yards.

I once worked with a guy who did a lot of handgun hunting. His baby was a TC in 6.5 JDJ. But before that he used the same TC in .30-30 with 150 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip handloads. With the 4x handgun scope on it, he claimed it was an MOA gun. I've seen him on video ringing steel with it at 500 yards. Also saw video of him dropping a special draw late season elk outside Gardiner, MT from over 300 yards with his 6.5 JDJ. Not bad from a 14 inch barreled single shot pistol. Apples to oranges comparison, I know, but I think the accuracy limitation on the .30-30 is primarily the lever guns they are usually chambered in. From a more accurate platform, with spitzer bullets, you might be surprised how accurate the cartridge is.

I am still leaning towards a 70 gr GMX or 75 gr OTM from a 5.56. I also know people who have used various .22 centerfires on deer culling operations with excellent success. A friend of mine in college had over 100 one shot kills with a .22-250, and shot them to well beyond 150 yards. With modern bullets, I think today's 5.56x45 is probably as effective as the .243 Win of a generation ago-- really nothing to scoff at as a deer round.

Lets start by saying the most common platforms for these cartridges can have significant influence on the choice for hunting. If you applied the way-back machine you would have found a large number of 223 varmint rifles with 1 in 12 rifling. They were supremely accurate with 40 to 50 grain frangible bullets, not so much with anything heavier. Step forward today and most of the 223/556 crowd are AR platform guns which do just fine stabilizing the new crop of heavier 60 to 70 bullets which have been developed for medium game. Are they the best choice for deer sized animals? Probably not but the guns tend to be easy to scope and accurate with bullets that generally do work as advertised.

762x39 was never common or popular outside of the combloc surplus arena. Yes we have a few excellent bolt guns and there are ARs chambered in the cartridge, but even today far and away the majority of 762x39 shooters are using SKS and AK pattern rifles. On average they tend to be optics challenged with somewhat crude factory sights turning out less than olympic level accuracy. That is certainly not to say they aren't perfectly capable for hunting. (Prior to the proliferation of modern bolt guns, most popular and common hunting rifles of the past were generally 2 to 4 moa and they work perfectly fine for generations of hunters. It just means taking a poke across the mountain valley or into the next county is probably not a good idea.) Part of the challenge here though is we haven't seen the same level of ammunition advancement. We know from Tula and Wolf that the cartridge is perfectly capable of launching a 154 grain soft point around 2300 fps. (If it weren't for inconsistent or occasional non existent expansion this could be THE 762x39 hunting bullet.) There should be plenty of traditional cup and core bullets in this weight range that would perform admirably at the velocities of this round out to 300 yards. However with the plethora of cheap imported ammo and generally low demand for this specific application, we just haven't seen a major manufacturer put a lot of R&D into the .310 bullet arena. Wish it was otherwise.

So where does that leave us? I have no doubt "in a pinch" either will kill animals up to the size of deer. I do think the 30 caliber Russian could be and really should be a great medium game hunting round. Given the most common bullets and options for launching them, we should probably stick to the 223 when we find ourselves without other traditional deer caliber choices.

DBWY said:

How would using an undersized bullet, designed for the 30-30, improve 7.62x39 performance against the cartridge for which it was designed exactly? Leverevolution powder is available for sale, so 30-30 ammunition can be loaded that allows for a spitzer bullet (160gr FTX) of correct size to be loaded to about 2500 fps. Why would that same bullet in a smaller case and .003 undersized vs barrel groove perform better? I don't follow.

Click to expand...

Hornady lists their 30-30 160 FTX LeverEvolution ammo at 2,400 fps out of a 24" barrel (LINK).

I would say that there are not too many 24" 30-30's out there being used regularly, I would think most of the 30-30's being used are 16 or 20" Winchester and Marlins. So 2,500 FPS I would say is not possible out of a 30-30 even with a 24" barrel as those Hornady loads are hard to duplicate their velocities in reloads, I think they have maxed out what the 30-30 is capable of.

I have not heard of anyone getting 2,500 FPS out of a 30-30 with a 160 gr. bullet, that is within 100 fps of what a .308 Win can do with a 168gr. But if you have a source color me surprised.

Getting back on track:
So the 7.62x39 with a 20" barrel (which there are quite a few SKS's out there at that barrel length). As well as new bolt guns and AR47's that can get pretty close to 30-30 velocities, its at sneezing distance. Like @Newtosavage has said today's modern platforms, powders and bullets have increased the usefulness of the x39. I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting taking a 16" Combloc AK out hunting and expect good success at 150-200 yards (but I think there are quite a few back east that use a 20" SKS to great success on deer sized game). But if that is what the OP is talking about then I would stick with the 5.56 in a heavy for caliber bullet (64-70+ gr). But for me my 18" AR47 would be my go to between the two.

The big plus of the 30-30 is that the Winchester 30-30 is very light and short. It is an excellent stalking rifle and cartridge combination in close quarters. Also the bullet is heavy and expands well with a lot of push behind it. The only thing about a 7.62x39 is that they have similar trajectory and are 30 caliber. Compared to a 30-30 they have less recoil making them and the .223 good for youth hunters or people with shoulder injuries.